DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The IDS filed 4/24/2024 is considered.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
4. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed towards the entire disclosure. The abstract is merely a copy of claim 1. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
5. Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 line 4 recites “configure”. It appears as though this should recite “configured”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
6. Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the recited local computer and remote desktop client can be broadly interpreted as merely software (e.g. VM, container or other type of virtual computing instance, see Paragraph 0022) and therefore the claims are directed towards software per se. The claims must recite explicit hardware elements of the computing system in order to properly claim a system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 5, 14, and 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the remote desktop". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the recited “the remote desktop” is referring to a newly recited element or is meant to refer back to one of the recited “remote desktop system”, “remote desktop server”, or “remote desktop client”. Accordingly, the claim is indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 and 20 recite similar subject matter as claim 5 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 10, 11, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art (Background Section, Paragraphs 0001-0005, of the present application), hereinafter referred to as AAPA, and further in view of Korobov et al. (US 11477290 B1).
In regard to claim 1, AAPA discloses a method of displaying windows in a remote desktop system, comprising:
obtaining, by a remote desktop client executing on a local computer having a local operating system (OS), information relating a first window to a first virtual desktop generated by the local OS (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-5: “In a remote desktop session, when the user performs an action that opens a new remote window on the remote desktop, the remote desktop client can generate a new seamless window on the local desktop to display the contents of the remote window. The local OS positions the new seamless window on the active desktop being one of multiple virtual desktops generated by local OS”);
a remote window that corresponds to the first window, the remote window generated by a remote OS on a remote computer (Paragraph 0003 lines 7-11: “In another type of remote desktop system, windows on the remote desktop appear as if they are running directly on the user’s local desktop (such as system is referred to herein as being “seamless”). Thus, in a seamless system, a window on the local desktop (referred to herein as a “seamless window”) shows the contents of a corresponding window on the remote desktop (referred to herein as a “remote window”));
and displaying, by the remote desktop client in cooperation with the local OS, the first window on the first virtual desktop (Paragraph 0005 lines 11-12: “Once the remote desktop session is resumed, the local desktop client will display all seamless windows on the active desktop”).
While AAPA teaches the above and further teaches a remote desktop server, they fail to show the sending the information from the remote desktop client to a remote desktop server; setting, by the remote desktop server, a tag in a remote window object representing a remote window that corresponds to the first window based on the information; receiving, at the remote desktop client, at least a portion of the remote window object including the tag; and displaying, by the remote desktop client in cooperation with the local OS based on the tag, the first window on the first virtual desktop, as recited in the claims. Korobov teaches a remote desktop system similar to that of AAPA. In addition, Korobov further teaches
obtaining and sending information relating to a first window from a remote desktop client to a remote desktop server (Column 19 lines 55-59, Column 20 lines 7-13, Column 20 lines 52-67, Column 21 lines 1-25, Column 23 lines 55-60, and Column 24 lines 1-5: information (e.g. state of a window) from a client with respect to a first window corresponding to a remote application is provided to a remote server);
setting, by the remote desktop server, a tag in a remote window object representing a remote window that corresponds to the first window based on the information (Column 20 lines 52-67, Column 23 lines 55-60, and Column 24 lines 1-5: the information is set in a new window object in a session state, the new window object provides data fields (e.g. tags) for window state information including the geometry and position of the window in a graphical user interface);
receiving, at the remote desktop client, at least a portion of the remote window object including the tag (Column 24 lines 50-52 and Column 25 lines 5-8: client reads previous session state by receiving the previous session state from the remote server);
and displaying, by the remote desktop client based on the tag, the first window (Column 24 lines 57-61 and Column 25 lines 35-47: the first window is displayed at the client according the new window object and corresponding values of the data fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA and Korobov before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify AAPA to include the above of Korobov, in order to obtain sending the information from the remote desktop client to a remote desktop server; setting, by the remote desktop server, a tag in a remote window object representing a remote window that corresponds to the first window based on the information; receiving, at the remote desktop client, at least a portion of the remote window object including the tag; and displaying, by the remote desktop client in cooperation with the local OS based on the tag, the first window on the first virtual desktop. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing users with the features of the client device upon the remote system such that the remote system captures a current session state of a user's virtual session allowing it to be stored and then allows for subsequent restoration of the session upon the same remote system, as suggested by Korobov (Column 1 lines 45-51).
In regard to claim 2, AAPA discloses wherein the first window comprises a seamless window that displays contents of the remote window (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-5: “In a remote desktop session, when the user performs an action that opens a new remote window on the remote desktop, the remote desktop client can generate a new seamless window on the local desktop to display the contents of the remote window”).
In regard to claim 6, AAPA discloses wherein the first virtual desktop comprises a desktop generated by the local OS (Paragraph 0004 lines 7-8: “A virtual desktop comprises a local desktop generated by the local OS of the local computer.”).
In regard to claim 7, AAPA discloses wherein the first virtual desktop comprises a region of a desktop generated by the local OS (Paragraph 0001 lines 5-8: “A desktop is the primary graphical user interface (GUI) generated by an operating system (OS) executing on a computer… A desktop generated by an OS on a local computer is referred to herein as a “local desktop.”” and Paragraph 0004 lines 1-4: “An OS executing on a computer can manage multiple virtual desktops. Virtual desktops allow a user to expand their workspace across multiple, separate desktops on the same computer (referred to herein as “virtual desktops”). Typically the OS displays only one of the virtual desktops to the user as selected by the user (referred to herein as the “active desktop”)”: the virtual desktop is a desktop of the local device and therefore comprises a region (e.g. the entire area) of the desktop).
In regard to claim 8, Korobov further discloses wherein the client performs the steps of obtaining and sending in a remote desktop session (Column 23 lines 55-60, Column 24 lines 1-5, and Column 24 lines 24-38: the obtaining and sending is performed while the client is connected to a remote session),
and wherein the client performs the steps of receiving and displaying in response to reconnection of the remote desktop session (Column 24 lines 39-41, Column 24 lines 50-52, Column 24 lines 57-61, and Column 25 lines 35-47: the receiving and displaying is in response to restoration of the remote session).
Accordingly, the combination further teaches wherein the remote desktop client performs the steps of obtaining and sending in a remote desktop session, and wherein the remote desktop client performs the steps of receiving and displaying in response to reconnection of the remote desktop session. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing users with the features of the client device upon the remote system such that the remote system captures a current session state of a user's virtual session allowing it to be stored and then allows for subsequent restoration of the session upon the same remote system, as suggested by Korobov (Column 1 lines 45-51).
In regard to claims 10, 11, 15, and 16, medium claims 10, 11, 15, and 16 correspond generally to method claims 1, 2, 6, and 7, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claims 17 and 18, system claims 17 and 18 correspond generally to method claims 1 and 2, respectively, and recite similar features in system form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
9. Claim(s) 3, 4, 12, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art (Background Section, Paragraphs 0001-0005, of the present application), hereinafter referred to as AAPA, Korobov et al. (US 11477290 B1), and further in view of Joseph (US 2022/0269378 A1).
In regard to claim 3, while AAPA and Korobov teaches the information and the first virtual desktop and Korobov further teaches providing features of the client device upon the remote system with respect to operating systems on client devices suspending and resuming user sessions (Column 18 lines 18-25 and lines 36-37), they fail to show the wherein the information comprises a value that identifies the first virtual desktop, as recited in the claims. Joseph teaches features of a client device suspending and resuming user sessions similar to that as described (Korobov Column 18 lines 18-25) by Korobov. In addition, Joseph further teaches
information including value that identifies a virtual desktop where an application window is located (Paragraph 0067, Paragraph 0069 lines 13-14, and Paragraph 0075: a window is mapped to a virtual desktop where the window is located and information identifying the window and the virtual desktop is stored so that the window can be restored in the virtual desktop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA, Korobov, and Joseph before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the information taught by AAPA and Korobov to include the information including value that identifies a virtual desktop where an application window is located of Joseph, in order to obtain wherein the information comprises a value that identifies the first virtual desktop. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as a user can pick up where they left off organizationally, therefore avoiding lost time, as suggested by Joseph (Paragraph 0065). Further as suggested by Korobov, it is beneficial to provide features of the client device upon the remote system with respect to operating systems on client devices suspending and resuming user sessions (Column 18 lines 18-25 and lines 36-37) and therefore, would be obvious to include the features of Joseph with respect to virtual desktops and associated windows when suspending and resuming user sessions.
In regard to claim 4, the combination of AAPA, Korobov, and Joseph further discloses wherein the remote desktop server sets the tag to the value that identifies the first virtual desktop (The rejections of claims 1 and 3 are incorporated herein in their entirety. As the combination provides for information relating to a first window in a first virtual desktop, setting a tag according to the information, and including a value that identifies the first virtual desktop, the combination would reasonably provide the value in the new window object of Korobov as a data field (e.g. tag) so that state of the window is accurately stored so that when the remote session is restored, the window can be opened in the correct position on the user interface (e.g. the virtual desktop where the application was positioned) thereby the remote system captures a current session state of a user's virtual session allowing it to be stored and then allows for subsequent restoration of the session upon the same remote system and a user can pick up where they left off organizationally).
In regard to claims 12 and 13, medium claims 12 and 13 correspond generally to method claims 3 and 4, respectively, and recite similar features in medium form, and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 19, medium claim 19 correspond generally to method claims 3 and 4 and recites similar features in medium form, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
10. Claim(s) 5, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art (Background Section, Paragraphs 0001-0005, of the present application), hereinafter referred to as AAPA, Korobov et al. (US 11477290 B1), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 5181162).
In regard to claim 5, while AAPA and Korobov teaches the tag and Korobov further teaches the remote desktop storing the information externally (Column 24 line 62-Column 25 line 13), they fail to show the wherein the remote desktop stores the information and sets the tag to a pointer to the information as stored, as recited in the claims. Smith teaches storing and accessing data objects similar to that of Korobov. In addition, Smith further teaches
providing a pointer to memory address of stored information for a content object (Column 4 lines 25-29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA, Korobov, and Smith before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tag and the remote desktop storing the information taught by AAPA and Korobov to include the providing a pointer to memory address of stored information for a content object of Smith, in order to obtain wherein the remote desktop stores the information and sets the tag to a pointer to the information as stored. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as accessing information stored externally would have been obtained, as suggested by Smith (Column 4 lines 25-29).
In regard to claim 14, medium claim 14 corresponds generally to method claim 5 and recites similar features in medium form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
In regard to claim 20, system claim 20 corresponds generally to method claim 5 and recites similar features in system form and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
11. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants Admitted Prior Art (Background Section, Paragraphs 0001-0005, of the present application), hereinafter referred to as AAPA, Korobov et al. (US 11477290 B1), and further in view of Lv et al. (US 2021/0397464 A1).
In regard to claim 9, while AAPA and Korobov teach the remote desktop server, the remote OS, the tag, and the remote desktop client, and Korobov further teaches the remote system providing access to applications through whole desktops provided by virtual machines (Column 18 lines 1-10), they fail to show the displaying, by the remote desktop server in cooperation with the remote OS based on the tag, a second window on a second virtual desktop generated by the remote OS; and displaying, by the remote desktop client, at least a portion of the second virtual desktop in a console session between the remote desktop client and the remote desktop server, as recited in the claims. Lv teaches a remote desktop system similar to that of AAPA and Korobov. In addition, Lv further teaches
displaying, by a remote desktop server in cooperation with a remote OS, a second window on a second virtual desktop generated by the remote OS (Fig. 1 elements 150, 152, 154, and 156, Paragraph 0023 lines 14-16, and Paragrpah 0062 lines 1-3: remote node, using an OS, displays a virtual desktop with a second window);
and displaying, by a remote desktop client, at least a portion of the second virtual desktop in a console session between the remote desktop client and the remote desktop server (Fig. 2 elements 114, 154, and 156and Paragraph 0024 lines 4-6: a remote client displays the virtual desktop in as a console session on the local desktop).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of AAPA, Korobov, and Lv before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the remote desktop server, the remote OS, the tag, and the remote desktop client, and the remote system providing access to applications through whole desktops provided by virtual machines taught by AAPA and Korobov to include the displaying, by a remote desktop server in cooperation with a remote OS, a second window on a second virtual desktop generated by the remote OS and displaying, by a remote desktop client, at least a portion of the second virtual desktop in a console session between the remote desktop client and the remote desktop server of Lv, in order to obtain displaying, by the remote desktop server in cooperation with the remote OS based on the tag, a second window on a second virtual desktop generated by the remote OS; and displaying, by the remote desktop client, at least a portion of the second virtual desktop in a console session between the remote desktop client and the remote desktop server. It would have been advantageous for one to utilize such a combination as providing solution for transitioning applications between local and remote desktops, as suggested by Lv (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-3).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brinkhoff et al. (US 11734032 B1), see at least the abstract.
Fang et al. (US 2016/0085388 A1), see at least the abstract.
Wesley et al. (US 2014/0304326 A1), see at least the abstract.
Pinto et al. (US 2011/0246904 A1), see at least the abstract and Paragraph 0059.
Croft et al. (US 2007/0174410 A1), see at least the abstract.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS S ULRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fred Ehichioya can be reached at (571)272-4034. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
14. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nicholas Ulrich/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2179